p2pnet - rss feed: Shaw: clients come first
p2pnet.net News:- There’s no doubt about Shaw Communications president Peter Bissonnette’s feelings regarding yesterday’s Canadian Federal Court dismissal of Big Music’s attempts to sue Canadian file sharers.
“When we were served by the industry some of the isps wanted to negotiate, to narrow it down, but but we were unequivocal,” he told p2pnet. “We said we were not prepared to compromise. We were told the likelihood of winning was like pushing water uphill. So we were very pleased.
“The music industry was probably relying on what was happening in the States and believed they had a slam-dunk.”
Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruled that putting music into a computer directory that might be shared remotely by someone else doesn’t constitute copyright infringement under Canadian law.
His landmark decision came as the music industry ramps up its multi-front attack against file sharing and file sharers.
The CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association), owned by the Big Five record labels, was demanding a court order to force five Canadian ISPs to hand over the names of 29 people the labels claim were “each illegally distributing hundreds if not thousands of music copyright files to millions of strangers”.
However, “No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorised the reproduction of sound recordings,” von Finckenstein decided. “They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer user(s) via a P2P service.”
He also said the labels had not:
“Made out a prima facie case (their affidavit evidence is deficient, they have not: made a causal link between P2P pseudonyms and IP addresses and they have not made out a prima facie case of infringement),
“Established that the ISPs are the only practical source for the identity of the P2P pseudonyms; and
“Established that the public interest for disclosure outweighs the privacy concerns in light of the age of the data.”
The CRIA says it will appeal the decision but Bissonnette told p2pnet Shaw’s position would remain the same, no matter what: clients would be protected and his company would not back down “under any circumstance”.
The other four ISPs were Telus, Bell Sympatico, Rogers Communications and Videotron.
Like Shaw, three of the four refused to hand their clients’ names over to the Big Five - Universal Music, Warner Music, EMI, Sony Music and Bertelsmann’s BMG.
However, Videotron is based in Quebec and was ready to cooperate.
With more than 430,000 Internet customers, it supplies high-speed cable Internet access throughout the provinced by cable and dial-up modem and is owned by Quebecor Media, which is in turn a Archambault Group subsidiary, Archambault being the largest Quebec-based distributor and retailer of recorded music.
Last November Archambault came out with a radio, tv and newspaper “awareness” project “similar to the RIAA campaign” against p2p file sharing.
In the meanwhile, Canadians should be glad they are where they are.
Across the border, the US House Judiciary intellectual property subcommittee has passed HR 2517, the PDEA (Piracy Deterrence and Education Act) which will in effect have the FBI working for the entertainment industry against file-sharers, among others.
April 1st, 2004 at 7:56 pm
Take note. U.S. has a right wing republican government in charge. Canada has a Liberal (between the left NDP party and the right conservative party) government.
If you’re against file sharing then vote for the right wing governments. If you’re pro file sharing, make sure you don’t vote for conservative right wing governments.
April 1st, 2004 at 8:43 pm
if the p2p folks want music to be created, they must pay for and respect those that create, sponsor and manufacture the music. If you put a loaded weapon in a public place and somebody takes it and kills someone else, the person that put it there is responsible. The judge should ask why someone would put someone else’s property in a public place.
April 1st, 2004 at 8:45 pm
yes liberals promote people stealing from each other. Don’t hide behind such rubish.
April 1st, 2004 at 9:09 pm
In response to the ignorant individual who replied to my reply. First of all, if you think P2P is about stealing, you have no business even discussing P2P. Go and learn about what P2P is all about before posting nonsense.
Second, the conservative judges in the U.S.A. have proved that the facts aren’t important if they go against what big corporations. All the conservative republicans seem to care about is appeasing the corporations, no matter how much they lie and distort the facts.
The RIAA is crying poor, yet business is booming. Credible studies clearly show that file sharing is not harming the music industry.
P2P has nothing to do with stealing. Anyone who believes different is a damn fool.
April 1st, 2004 at 9:38 pm
We also have some very stingent Citizen Privacy protection under the Charter of Rights. Ones that can not be so easily be refuted or bypassed via a simple court case or even by a Parlimentary process, unless they are willing to rip up that Charter and yet again spend years redesigning it, (even though there are aspects to the present one that are still be worked out). This is something I think no Political party is willing touch, They have had their fingers Burned before.
TN1
April 1st, 2004 at 9:44 pm
Are you kidding? We have paid for it for years, with over-priced CD’s and DVD’s Artists making pennies on the dollars that the industry is making? The only one who wins is the Recording Giants, don’t kid yourself. How about the added tax we pay on blank CD’s in this country, where does that money go? It still has not been distributed. How about the reports from A&B Sound staff, who have over the last year and a half seen an increase in sales of music CD’s.
So your comparing someone killing someone else with a gun to P2P sharing? jeeze smoke another my friend…
TN1
April 1st, 2004 at 9:45 pm
Here here!! Finally some intelligence on the subject…
TN1
April 2nd, 2004 at 10:06 pm
It has little to do with conservative or liberal in Canada; it has more to do with consumer protection laws that have meaning and the judiciary not being as policiticized. We highly value our courts not being swayed by the elected government; we expect them to uphold the laws and even go against the government where the values of the people are concerned.
In a democracy, the laws should reflect the values of the majority, should they not?